So, I’ve just been reading about neurodiversity, disability and user experience design and Learning Management Systems e.g. Moodle. It’s interesting to get myself out of ‘tunnel vision’ about the range of features I feel are designed to make our Moodle design more inclusive, and to think about this more broadly and from different perspectives. This is helping to inform and expand the items I want to ask about in the questionnaire and focus group. One of the students responded to my email delightfully saying they were looking forward to seeing what I ask them about – now I feel a bit more pressure to make that interesting! Especially since they are design students.
I’m thinking, in terms of structure for the session, the first half I want to be about their experience, what they do and what are enablers and what are barriers about the Moodle pages. In line with ‘Standpoint theory’, I want to create some significant space for the participants to shape the discussion and identify the highlight the issues.
‘Standpoint theory views members of underrepresented or marginalized groups as epistemically privileged because they are able to see more clearly the institutional structures and systems that marginalize them.’ (Parson, 2005 p.23).
However, as we progress through the session I want to ask some more detailed questions, or actually to provide prompts for the students to pick up and discuss. This is partly because there may be other aspects of the design that students are not particularly aware of or which they may feel uncomfortable about bringing up, thinking they are too minor or because they don’t want to give criticism.
Parson argues that ‘If seeking to identify how an individual or group of individuals is challenged, research questions should guide the exploration of the experiences and challenges of the groups whose experiences we would like to improve.’ (Parson 2019, p. 22). I’m hoping that the use of prompts will allow sufficient scope for the participants to have this agency, without putting all the responsibility of the session on them.
Focus groups and semi-structured interviews
Although these are different research methods, I’ve put them together because there are some overlaps in the way I want to approach them, and I need to design a version of each that fulfils the same goals.
Whilst ideally I’d like to see what happens in the more open focus group structure, I also recognise that not everyone wants to discuss their neurodivergence or disability with classmates or peers and so I have offered 1:1 interviews as an alternative. In addition, as part of my contingency planning I’m also opening up the project to staff and 1:1 interviews seem like a more appropriate format for speaking to staff.
I am struggling to structure my interviews and focus group though, which is quite unusual for me. This is a part of planning that I usually really enjoy, thinking about the aims of the session and the different ways you might go about getting there. I think one of the reasons I’m struggling is that I want there to be space for the participants to talk, and if they do, that will be fine, I think I’ll be able to follow their lead. What I’m struggling with seems to be the structure, what are the questions that I can ask about this specific topic that aren’t so micro that they stall the conversation (e.g. to what extent is the size of these buttons helpful…? :)), or too personal (e.g. what affect does your neurodivergence have on your experience of Moodle?)
I am, however, reassured by Adams’ view, ‘Once developed, the interview guide, no matter how extensive its preparation, should still be considered a work in progress’. (Adams 2015 p.499). He is very clear that the structure of interviews and also focus groups, can and should change and be reviewed as the sessions progress. I had been worried that somehow this needed to be the same (a bit like a job interview), which would make it very unnatural and I think difficult to be in.
So, the upshot is that I am hoping to provide prompts on individual pieces of paper so that participants can select the different things they want to talk about. This should work either in a focus group situation or in a 1:1.
Another aspect of the session which I think is important is about creating a welcoming atmosphere in room and amongst participants and myself. This has always been something that’s important to me, from being a teacher, and I would like to continue it here. I will ensure that the room is set up to try and suggest an equal footing between us all (no teacher chair at the head of the room). If we are in a focus group scenario, I will be using individual, pair and group work to try and maximise the opportunity for those who are from less dominant social groups to participate fully and in the way they wish.
I’m interested in how Maha Bali and Mia Zamora have incorporated this apparently simple idea into a much wider and deeper concept of Intentional Equitable Hospitality (IEH) in an educational context. They say, ‘IEH begins with the notion that the teacher or workshop facilitator is a “host” of a space, responsible for hospitality, and welcoming others into that space.’ (Bali and Zamora 2022)
Whilst this is an apparently simple idea, it goes much deeper, ‘(IEH) prioritizes the values of social justice while fostering learner/participant agency within the learning space, while never forgetting the ways in which power and oppression work outside of that learning space, and how they influence it.’ (Bali and Zamora 2022)
A change of plan… semi-structured interviews
Since writing the first part of this post, it turns out that my plan for a focus group is likely to be replaced by 1:1 semi-structured interviews. Whilst no-one has explicitly said that a focus group would be uncomfortable, the practical considerations of trying to arrange to meet participants has meant that I will largely be conducting semi-structured interviews. I’ve kept the broad structure and principles of my plan, but amended it for the different scenario.
In the video below, I’ve tried to explain the rationale for my design:
Designing the online questionnaire:
In designing this form, I knew I wanted it to be short (easily completable within 5mins), and mostly tick boxes. I also wanted to ask about neurodiversity and/or disability but I was unsure about the wording for this question.
When considering who my participants might be, I asked for some advice from Carys Kennedy, who used to manage the disability service and she very helpfully sent me a sample question for how she asked about disability when conducting online feedback. I made some tweaks to this to suit my needs, but this was a great start for me to feel confident about the appropriate wording for this question. I had included an ‘Other’ box but changed it for ‘Prefer not to say’ and ‘None of the above’, with the free text box instead, after feedback from Carmen Fernandez, Assistive Technology Coordinator.
Carmen also helped me to see more clearly that I needed to remove a section at the start which attempted to explain why I needed the name of the participant and also their neurodiversity/disability. Inadvertently I was implying that there would somehow be a connection between what they said and their neurodivergence more broadly, even though I was actively trying to avoid saying this. It was unclear and I removed it.
I was concerned that this introductory text was too long, but after talking to my tutor group, I was reassured that it seemed ok and keeping it there was part of due diligence on my part. One of my classmates recommended changing the colour to dark green, which she said was easier on the eye. She also said that the use of tick boxes made it seem not too onerous. Mostly, from my tutor group, I was reassured that repeating topics in the questionnaire and in the focus group/interview was actually fine, and would give some valuable quantitive data and a different medium for participants to share their thoughts.
In writing the online questionnaire, I was concerned that my focus would either be too narrow (focussing on specific elements of design) or too broad, when probably the participants would not have considered their use of Moodle in detail and might not know how to answer. I read some more about UX design, specifically for neurodivergent people (see UX design for neurodiverse, visually impaired and disabled users post) and with more feedback from Carmen I was able to clarify what I wanted to ask, and to feel more confident about doing so.
Bibliography:
Adams, W. ‘Conducting Semi‐Structured Interviews’ In Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, edited by Kathryn E. Newcomer, Harry P. Hatry, and Joseph S. Wholey, 1st ed., 492–505. Wiley, 2015. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119171386.ch19. (Accessed 22 November 2023)
Bali, M. and Zamora, M. (2022) ‘2: Intentionally Equitable Hospitality as Critical Instructional Design’ in Designing for Care, Pressbooks Available at: https://pressbooks.pub/designingforcare/chapter/intentionally-equitable-hospitality-as-critical-instructional-design/ (Accessed 7 January 2024)
Parson, L (2019) ‘Chapter 2: Considering Positionality: The Ethics of Conducting Research with Marginalized Groups’ in Strunk and Locke, eds. Research Methods for Social Justice and Equity in Education. Cham: Springer International Publishing pp. 15-32